PDA

View Full Version : "Does this road look rail to you?"



BRC
2010-05-09, 01:31 PM
There is alot of talk about players outsmarting DM's, especially railroaders. Finding ways around the plot the DM has devised, figuring out that of course the chancellor is behind the prince's kidnapping and forcing him to tell them everything instead of wandering into the mountains to find the prince.

Frequently, this is heralded as a good thing, but I wonder, is it really? Not all DM's are master improvisers, and frequently the route they've planned for you to take is going to be a fun one.
Now, this isn't about DM's who have epic-level wizards show up, teleport the PC's to a sealed dungeon inaccessible by other means, only showing up to teleport them out again when they did exactly what the DM wanted done, and if they deviate those same wizards show up and knock the PC's out. I'm talking about your run of the mill DM who works based on a decently reasonable set of assumptions (The PC's will accept the mission, they will kill the bandits, they will investigate the strange chanting they hear from the cave, ect), and drops rather obvious plot hooks.

Is it always better to mix things up, or sometimes is it a better idea for a player, even though they know they're being Railroaded, to just go with it.

Swordgleam
2010-05-09, 01:34 PM
I prefer character-driven plots, at least as a DM. (As a PC, I'm sometimes too lazy to do that work.) So I think the "proper" thing to do is to make the sort of character who is going to accept most plot hooks - either for love or money - and then just play your character.

Flickerdart
2010-05-09, 01:35 PM
If the player characters are reasonably expected to bite the hooks in-character (say, being paid lots of cash to rescue the prince instead of investigating in the castle) then the players are being jerks about it. If the PCs, however, are anti-royalists, then they should be expected to kill the prince rather than rescue him or something like that, and complaining when they do is not appropriate. Plot hooks should be made with the characters in mind, the players should keep player and character knowledge separate and it'll all work out.

Gamerlord
2010-05-09, 01:38 PM
I prefer character-driven plots, not only do I not care when my characters derail the plot, I give them several opportunities to do so, such as joining the cultists they were hired to kill.

Also, if the DMs set road the most fun, why would the players not want to be on it? Because it isn't fun.

Eldan
2010-05-09, 01:49 PM
The problem could just be that the players don't recognize the correct road, or, perhaps more likely, don't see that they are derailing the plot.

In your example:
Imagine a playing table, four people sitting around it. Suddenly one of them has a strange expression on his face, something dawns on him.

"Wait, guys...", he says.
"The prince is gone. And there is no other heir. Didn't we do obscure thing X three seasons ago which points at the chancellor?"
The DM bites his nails and curses silently about having forgotten that little detail which leads to them unraveling the plot to easily.


Who's to blame in this case? No one, probably. The player didn't think about derailing the plot, he just had a bright idea. The DM, on the other hand, forgot a small detail, it happens. The result could be a lovingly wilderness adventure and dungeon going to waste. Sad, but it happens.

The Cat Goddess
2010-05-09, 02:04 PM
If you're just starting a game and you have certain adventures in mind, make sure you set down some guidelines before character creation.

Have an adventure where the PCs have to rescue the Prince? Make sure that you tell the players that they are all from a kingdom where the royal family is well respected or even beloved.

Planning an adventure where the PCs are supposed to be tricked into attacking a Fey-protected forest? Make sure you say "Only Urban Druid & Urban Ranger Variants for those classes".

Always review the character sheets... especially if you're not starting the game at 1st level. Insist on backgrouds to explain why the characters chose the level progression & PrCs they have.

When you just say "make 12th level characters", you're leaving yourself wide open for someone to make an Ur-Priest/Mystic Theurge, a Half-Ogre WarHulk/Frenzied Berzerker, a Druid with Vow of Poverty or some other character that just won't fit in the story you want to create.

Darklord Xavez
2010-05-09, 02:05 PM
There is alot of talk about players outsmarting DM's, especially railroaders. Finding ways around the plot the DM has devised, figuring out that of course the chancellor is behind the prince's kidnapping and forcing him to tell them everything instead of wandering into the mountains to find the prince.

Frequently, this is heralded as a good thing, but I wonder, is it really? Not all DM's are master improvisers, and frequently the route they've planned for you to take is going to be a fun one.
Now, this isn't about DM's who have epic-level wizards show up, teleport the PC's to a sealed dungeon inaccessible by other means, only showing up to teleport them out again when they did exactly what the DM wanted done, and if they deviate those same wizards show up and knock the PC's out. I'm talking about your run of the mill DM who works based on a decently reasonable set of assumptions (The PC's will accept the mission, they will kill the bandits, they will investigate the strange chanting they hear from the cave, ect), and drops rather obvious plot hooks.

Is it always better to mix things up, or sometimes is it a better idea for a player, even though they know they're being Railroaded, to just go with it.

BRC, you are a GOD.
-Xavez

BRC
2010-05-09, 02:22 PM
The problem could just be that the players don't recognize the correct road, or, perhaps more likely, don't see that they are derailing the plot.

In your example:
Imagine a playing table, four people sitting around it. Suddenly one of them has a strange expression on his face, something dawns on him.

"Wait, guys...", he says.
"The prince is gone. And there is no other heir. Didn't we do obscure thing X three seasons ago which points at the chancellor?"
The DM bites his nails and curses silently about having forgotten that little detail which leads to them unraveling the plot to easily.


Who's to blame in this case? No one, probably. The player didn't think about derailing the plot, he just had a bright idea. The DM, on the other hand, forgot a small detail, it happens. The result could be a lovingly wilderness adventure and dungeon going to waste. Sad, but it happens.
This isn't a "Whose fault is it" thing.

Here is what I'm asking, so you're that player, sitting there, and you realize that the Chancellor is probably behind the Prince's disappearance.

Now, at this point, if your character realized this, it would probably be a smart move to report your suspicions to the king and investigate further. However, as a player you have two options.
Option 1: keep your mouth shut, the DM clearly has a plan here, and it doesn't call for you knowing the Chancellor is evil yet. You could have your character not connect the dots you as a player did and just let the story roll.
Option 2: You announce your suspicions, forcing the DM to either scrap what they had planned and make something up on the spot, or panic and try to push you back on the rails. Either way, it probably won't be as fun as what the DM had planned.

Note, this is not "How should the DM react", it is "What should the player do". Don't assume that this is a master DM who can improvise his way out of anything. You have discovered a flaw in his plan, is it right to exploit that.

And, for the sake of argument, let's assume your character has no personal reason to hate or trust this chancellor. Assume the DM's plan makes sense for your characters, they honestly would want to recover the Prince. It makes just as much sense for your character to accuse the chancellor as it does for them to go into the mountains, the DM's only crime here is garden-variety railroading. Every decision the DM expects you to make is a reasonable one, the plot hooks are obvious, ect. The story is indistinguishable from one that isn't railroaded until the PC's go off the rails.

In such a situation, is it better for a PC to intentionally go off the rails, or to stay on track. Is going off the rails, in of itself, a good thing.

The Cat Goddess
2010-05-09, 02:30 PM
A good DM would probably pull a switcheroo on you.

Player: "Hey guys, I think the Chancellor is behind all this!"

DM: Realizing all his plans might be for naught, suddenly realizes that perhaps the Chancellor is being framed by the real villian... the Prince's Betrothed! *Dun, Dun, Dun!*

A good DM is never afraid of doing a little retroactive continuity changing to the back-story. :smallwink:

BRC
2010-05-09, 02:32 PM
A good DM would probably pull a switcheroo on you.

Player: "Hey guys, I think the Chancellor is behind all this!"

DM: Realizing all his plans might be for naught, suddenly realizes that perhaps the Chancellor is being framed by the real villian... the Prince's Betrothed! *Dun, Dun, Dun!*

A good DM is never afraid of doing a little retroactive continuity changing to the back-story. :smallwink:
Once again, this is not about what the DM should do if the player does something he didn't plan for. This is should a player intentionally do something the DM didn't plan for because the DM didn't plan for it.

Eldan
2010-05-09, 02:33 PM
Fault was perhaps the wrong word, and I think I didn't really explain what I meant.

Here's my argument again: assume that I, the player, find a flaw in the DM's plan. In my experience, I often don't even realize that it is a flaw until I see the look on the DM's face. What goes on in my head is: "Hey, the DM left me a really obscure clue here! That was a hard one, good that I saw that, otherwise, we would have sent us trecking through the wilderness for a few weeks while the chancellor could have done who knows what! Oh you devious bastard you!"

How can a player know when something is a clever plan by the DM to award those paying attention to detail, and when it is a flaw in the DM's plan he didn't realize himself?

The Cat Goddess
2010-05-09, 02:39 PM
Unless you're a very experienced player with a relatively inexperienced DM, you shouldn't hold back anything.

If you, as the player, see a plot hole in the neophyte's story... ignore it.

If you, as the player, see what you think is a plot hole in the experienced DM's story... Jump at it. You may be surprised to find that he planned for that (or that you've just given him ideas to make the plot much more convoluted).

Swordgleam
2010-05-09, 02:48 PM
Once again, this is not about what the DM should do if the player does something he didn't plan for. This is should a player intentionally do something the DM didn't plan for because the DM didn't plan for it.

The problem is that players often can't tell what the DM planned and what is a flaw.

Take my players (please). I give them a synopsis of what's happened since their last adventure with at least seven plot hooks. They twiddle their thumbs for half a session. I asked why, and a player responded, "We assumed those were all background details because the world is just that f'ed up."

Later, I added in some background details because the PCs were asking what felt like irrelevant questions. They then went, "This sounds important. We should check this out" and I had to improvise a bunch of stuff.

In neither case were the PCs trying to mess with me. They were just genuinely confused about what details were supposed to be plot-related.

The Big Dice
2010-05-09, 03:50 PM
Funny thing about rails, they're a fast and comfortable way to travel. And I don't care what kind of GM you say you are, the moemnt you put pen to paper for any reason, you're railroading players.

Plan an encounter? That's rails. Design an NPC that is important to your plot? There's more rails. Have any kind of fixed outcome, plan, plot or other story device in mind? You're railroading me, man!

But the reality is, 99% of players are going to go along with things. They buy in to the game, put on their disbelief suspenders and accept (or hope) that the GM knows what the flight plan is.

As some people have mentioned, an experienced GM will listen to what the players are talking about round the table. If they see something complex where he sees something simple, the GM can adapt things. I've done that a lot, especially when players come out with ideas that are better than mine were!

In my experience, there's two general types of player that complain about being railroaded, outside of cases like the Epic Wizard (Now you get teleported to an arena where you have to fight GIANT DIRE WOMBATS!) mentioned by the OP. They tend to be either fairly inexperienced players or players that are delibarately setting out to be disruptive or difficult. There's a wide variety of strategies a GM can take to deal with either situation, too many for the scope of this little forum post to explore.

As a player, you're part of a team. The same team that the GM is part of. By all means, it's a player's duty to throw curve balls at his GM and to act in ways that are right for the character and that may well be things that the GM hasn't accounted for. But don't go yelling RAILROAD! Not without good reason, anyway. The game is much more fun if you buy into it. With a Tom Baker style nod to the audience.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-05-09, 04:01 PM
Players should play their characters. Fullstop.

If this means that, using only in-game information, a character would have figured out the plot then he should act on that information. The more you metagame a RPG the worse it gets - provided said RPG is not solely about the metagame.

Attempting to "play along" with the DM just puts you in the position of feeling patronizing (which makes you take the game less seriously) and puts the DM in the awkward position of noticing one of his players acting oddly without knowing what's bothering him. It can make the DM uncomfortable and it makes the game less fun for the Player-in-the-know.

Likewise, no player should spend their time playing characters devoted to smashing the DM's plot. Gaming is a communal activity; trying to "put one over" on your DM can disrupt the harmony of the table. Unless, of course, that is the point of the game :smalltongue:

Superglucose
2010-05-09, 04:05 PM
My GM didn't like how I handled a situation. His "villain" just met up against our party, and we traded 1 5th level druid for 6 2nd level guards, 4 5th level wizards, 6 constructs, and significant damage to his fort. In short, we retreated, but not after inflicting serious damage. He's elected that the "villain" thinks he won (?!) and so his villain is threatening us.

Now we're getting "free" divination from the local people who are "advising" us that the best option is to sue for peace and prostrate ourselves because we had been "licked."

In short? Hell no. We're killing that "villain."

Tavar
2010-05-09, 04:10 PM
@Big Dice:
That's not really what railroading means. Railroading is when you can't adapt to the changing situation, so instead you shut down all possibilities except the exact thing you plan for.

IonDragon
2010-05-09, 04:37 PM
His "villain" just met up against our party, and we traded 1 5th level druid for 6 2nd level guards, 4 5th level wizards, 6 constructs, and significant damage to his fort.

Those were Armor Elemental, remember?

Foryn Gilnith
2010-05-09, 04:46 PM
@thebigdice:
I'd characterize that as "roads" more than "rails". If I come across rails in the middle of nowhere I'll be freaked out; if I come across roads in the middle of nowhere I'll be happy. DM-planned encounters in the middle of random wandering make me happy, not freaked out.

Eldan
2010-05-09, 05:36 PM
Exactly. To stay with the analogy: a train can't leave it's rails, except when it crashes. A car, on the other hand, can leave the road, it just might get a little bumpy for a while, until it meets a new road.
It's the same with plots: some DMs design their plots in a way that the players can't ever deviate from their destined course: all walls are indestructible, the BBEG can only be defeated by the three holy gems, and if you try and leave, you are teleported back.

holywhippet
2010-05-09, 06:36 PM
It can be a question of knowing when your DM is railroading and when they are doing things deliberatly though. In a recent part of our campaign we were running amok in an enemy town when as dawn broke we noticed their army returning. So we got the heck out of there. However, it occured to me afterwards that an army marching at dawn is a sign that they probably have another army on their heels. I checked with my DM and he confirmed that this pretty much is the case - the army didn't just return at a time that would be inconvinient for us.

Pechvarry
2010-05-09, 06:53 PM
There's probably a term for it, but I don't know it and I wish it were as high profile of a situation as Railroading GMs: That jerk player who refuses to go where he's told.

I'd take a Railroading GM over the guy who refuses to do simple things just because it's obviously where the plot is any day.

One of those 2 described people is doing the best he can (though he may be too ignorant for the job). The other is actively being spiteful. And I've ran into these types that feel they have "won the game" by thinking outside the box.

The Big Dice
2010-05-09, 06:54 PM
@Big Dice:
That's not really what railroading means. Railroading is when you can't adapt to the changing situation, so instead you shut down all possibilities except the exact thing you plan for.
That's a type of railroading, but it's a long way from being the whole picture.

Railroading is taking options away from players. It's forcing players to make specific choices at specific times. It can be subtle, like when a GM wants a specific NPC to be encountered, so no matter where the PCs go they meet that NPC. Or it can be blatant, like being teleported by a mad wizard and forced to fight giant dire wombats.

Another way to describe railroading is linear plotting. A given sequence of events will take place, and nothing the players can do will change that.

The ultimate expression of railroading is a dungeon bash. In those, you can literally see the walls that are narrowing your options. Your choices are turn left or right, or go through the door. Or sometimes go forwards if the option presents itself. You can deal with the traps and encounters that are pre planned to get to the preset boss encounter. Or you can leave, in which case the GM has nothing prepared for you that particular session.

Railroading is far from the simplistic view of it that many players have.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-05-09, 07:19 PM
That's a type of railroading, but it's a long way from being the whole picture.

Railroading is taking options away from players. It's forcing players to make specific choices at specific times. It can be subtle, like when a GM wants a specific NPC to be encountered, so no matter where the PCs go they meet that NPC. Or it can be blatant, like being teleported by a mad wizard and forced to fight giant dire wombats.

Another way to describe railroading is linear plotting. A given sequence of events will take place, and nothing the players can do will change that.

The ultimate expression of railroading is a dungeon bash. In those, you can literally see the walls that are narrowing your options. Your choices are turn left or right, or go through the door. Or sometimes go forwards if the option presents itself. You can deal with the traps and encounters that are pre planned to get to the preset boss encounter. Or you can leave, in which case the GM has nothing prepared for you that particular session.

Railroading is far from the simplistic view of it that many players have.Not to get all pomo, but the definition of railroading in this context is socially constructed by the roleplayers who use the term; that is to say, the popular definition is the correct definition by default. And in my humble opinion, when most roleplayers refer to railroading, they're not merely talking about limiting player action or the DM having a linear plot in mind. They're talking about limiting player action, or setting up contingencies to limit player action, in response to players leaving or attempting to leave the linear plot. If the term was so vague as to mean basically any sort of preparation in a campaign setting, like you're saying, it would have little to no functional use.

That said, I do agree that railroading falls under a subset of actions which limit player action, and that limiting player action (or perhaps more generally, player control over the narrative) can be quite useful. Railroading is generally where it stops being useful.

In response to the OP, it depends on how you're being railroaded. Some of the most fun I've had was (as a group) repeatedly killing antagonists we were supposed to run away from. The DM was a bit confounded, but everyone was having fun with it. He wasn't the best improviser, but he was still able to roll with the punches. Also, some DMs set up a linear plot with the expectation that it will be derailed. I think you should stay on the rails in your example, but your example is a special case.

The Big Dice
2010-05-09, 07:55 PM
Not to get all pomo, but the definition of railroading in this context is socially constructed by the roleplayers who use the term; that is to say, the popular definition is the correct definition by default. And in my humble opinion, when most roleplayers refer to railroading, they're not merely talking about limiting player action or the DM having a linear plot in mind. They're talking about limiting player action, or setting up contingencies to limit player action, in response to players leaving or attempting to leave the linear plot. If the term was so vague as to mean basically any sort of preparation in a campaign setting, like you're saying, it would have little to no functional use.
Again, it's not that simple. Here's (http://trollitc.com/2010/04/on-railroading) one take on what railroading is. Here (http://rpgtheoryreview.blogspot.com/2007/02/lesson-railroading.html) is a slightly more pompous one. Here (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=4405.0) is an even more pompous discussion of railroading.

There's no real consensus on what railroading is. It's common usage is the cry of the player who feels that the GM is too heavy handed when it comes to controlling the direction a game takes. But it is also a very grey area because the term is ill defined and often gets applied to wildly different situations.

In other words, different people use the term in different ways. IF it was at all clear cut, there'd be no need to discuss and debate it.

When you examine what railroading really is, it stops being as clear cut as limiting player action, or setting up contingencies to limit player action in response to players leaving or attempting to leave the linear plot. Context is important when you're talking about railroading. More often than not, the term is used in a negative context. And some GMs, especially less experienced ones, can fall into the trap of railroading with a heavy hand. Forcing the players to take a certain course of action, or not allowing for a third escape route from a room with only two doors.

That said, a more experience GM might be able to manipulate the players with plot, using character backgrounds to encourage a course of action, or improvising with the players when they try for the third (and previously unplanned) escape route. The end result is the same, though. The characters go to the Haunted Forest, or escape from the dungeons of Castle Doom.

In other words, the rails are followed. But in one case the players get on the train at gun point, while in the other they leap aboard of their own free will.

Once you as a GM understand what railroading is for and how to go about it in a subtle rather than blatant manner, it becomes quite a useful tool. In fact, i'd go as far as to say that railroading with a light touch is the most important skill someone who GMs in a storytelling style can develop.

The New Bruceski
2010-05-09, 07:58 PM
The thing is, what one party calls railroading is what another group calls Tuesday. It's a spectrum rather than a yes/no issue, and different groups have different tolerances.

Raum
2010-05-09, 08:34 PM
Not all DM's are master improvisers, and frequently the route they've planned for you to take is going to be a fun one. The question to ask here is 'fun for whom'? That said, scripted adventures can be a lot of fun. Just don't sell it to me as something else.


Is it always better to mix things up, or sometimes is it a better idea for a player, even though they know they're being Railroaded, to just go with it.This should be something the group works out prior to play. The 'right' choice will depend on the players after all.

-----
I've played and run campaigns with elements of both sandbox and rails. Both can be enjoyable, though often for different reasons. That said, the PCs should matter in the campaign's context whether it's scripted or not.

As for definitions, the best one I've seen is "Railroading is when the plot has player immunity." by loseth on RPG.net.

Godskook
2010-05-09, 08:43 PM
The original post misses the point of what railroading is. Its not just about plot points, its about routes. To use the Thread example of the missing prince, its not entirely unreasonable to expect players to bite at the hook of rescuing the prince. However, there are multiple ways of doing this. Let's say the Pc's investigation leads them to believe that a nearby Duke is holding the prince captive. Their options include:

-Raising an army to storm the gates, either as a distraction, or as their main effort.
-Negotiating with the Duke, using the possibility of sweeping this under the rug as a bargaining chip.
-Sneak in, and rescue the prince quietly.
-Assassinate the Duke.
-Lay low and try to find a 'vulnerable' point in the Duke's plan.

A *GREAT* DM(Read: better than I) could plan for all of these. A reasonable DM(Read: still better than I) could at least make any of these work. A bad DM has one solution, which involves the fighter putting his right hand in while the party caster does the hokey pokey, which is only figured out if they interrogate the local drunk who keeps screaming that "That is what it is all about". All DMs in this example want you to rescue the prince, but the railroading comes when they start defining a 'right' method for doing so.

holywhippet
2010-05-09, 09:04 PM
Sometimes I wish my DM would railroad us a bit more. Mainly because otherwise we seem to flounder around with no clue about what to do or the consequences of our actions. He told us once about another group he ran a campaign from who plundered a temple. He didn't drop divine wrath upon them, he just began slowly causing more and more problem for them - increased encounter rates, items mysteriously going missing etc. Eventually they realised what was going on and that they needed to atone.

Knaight
2010-05-09, 09:53 PM
To interject an opinion I haven't seen much around here yet.

As a GM, I have a few major pet peeves, which annoy me to no end. Primary among these are players that feel compelled to go along with what they think I have planned. Because I don't have anything planned to any great extent, and am far better at improvising off of what my players give me than anything else. One of my best players, my younger brother, is such precisely because he likes throwing curve-balls, at me in particular, and trying to screw up my games. It makes them far better.

holywhippet
2010-05-09, 10:07 PM
A campaign should have some kind of storyline though - and generally the PCs will be at the centre of that storyline. If you don't give them a direction to follow they are just going to wander around bored.

Private-Prinny
2010-05-09, 10:18 PM
The way I DM is to set up plot hooks A, B, and C, which lead to possible outcomes D, E, and F, and have consequences X, Y, and Z. I set up multiple, branching contingency plans that have a skeleton structure, and then I fill in the blanks when the PCs choose a path.

Of course, no plotline survives contact with the PCs, so I typically keep a tighter grip on things that are absolutely, 100% crucial to the story, even if it's unintentional, but I let the party have their fun 9 out of 10 times.

The New Bruceski
2010-05-09, 10:53 PM
To go a bit further than my previous post, a GM prepares with an assumption of where the players are going to go. S/he plans encounters and general plot giving detail to where the party will look. Different GMs do this to different degrees, but at some point every party wanders off the map (not always an actual map). At this point there are a variety of ways the GM can respond. In a general order from most accommodating to least:

--Ad-lib without any sign of needing to. Can be done well or poorly.
--Ad-lib but warn the players first, or "that caught me off guard, 30-minute snack break to get things in order". If one knows they're bad at ad-libbing this could be preferable to the above.
--Ask the players to move back to the planned stuff.
--Force the players to move back to the planned stuff.

For most people "railroading" begins somewhere around the third and fourth points, but with a skilled GM even the fourth one can be tolerable if they can pull it off. It really depends on how the GM and the party interact with each other.

Superglucose
2010-05-09, 11:15 PM
Railroading can be excused, just like anything else, by the Rule of Cool (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfCool). Who cares if my GM says I can't leave the spaceship containing the gigantic ants wielding laser cannons? The villains are LASER CANNON WIELDING ANTS ...IN SPACE! (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ptitlekt6mtovm4vne?from=Main.RecycledINSPACE) Railroading is only obvious or a problem when the overarching plot is boring.

Coidzor
2010-05-09, 11:28 PM
Once again, this is not about what the DM should do if the player does something he didn't plan for. This is should a player intentionally do something the DM didn't plan for because the DM didn't plan for it.

Hmm. Yes. Because if a DM can't plan for what happens if you go on a random killing spree or do something intelligent, then they should be reminded to limber up.

You can't say this sort of thing is always Chaotic Evil or Always Lawful Good. It's highly situational.

Shhalahr Windrider
2010-05-09, 11:42 PM
Also, if the DMs set road the most fun, why would the players not want to be on it? Because it isn't fun.
How would the player’s know the road is not fun if they don’t go down it?

arguskos
2010-05-09, 11:46 PM
How would the player’s know the road is not fun if they don’t go down it?
We have a winner. :smallamused:

I always ask my players to give me leeway, and trust that I'll make things fun for them. That's my JOB after all, and if I'm not doing it well, they can just ask me to shift it up some. Much easier for all involved than going off the rails and just blowing something up or being stupid for the sake of boredom.

To quote a friend, "communication, bitches". :smallamused:

Knaight
2010-05-09, 11:58 PM
A campaign should have some kind of storyline though - and generally the PCs will be at the centre of that storyline. If you don't give them a direction to follow they are just going to wander around bored.

Implying that I don't have some kind of storyline then? Rather impolite, but no matter.

There is a whole spectrum between completely predictable players, and completely unpredictable players, and furthermore any actions they take will have consequences, however a world operating in the background, without player involvement is incredibly boring, and that is what happens when people try to go along with the plots. All you need is a little push at the very beginning if you have enough proactive wild cards, then just run the setting and improvise your way through.

If, while doing that, a story fails to emerge, then it is a collective failure of massive proportions. Once the ball gets rolling, and more and more NPCs, organizations, and other points about setting get dragged into it, a story is inevitable, both containing the story itself, and the meta story around it, and between the two of them some very impressive material can be generated. The number of people involved in the storytelling, is far higher, particularly at the meta story, and the involvement of people who aren't just along for the ride, and who know they are actively changing things is much higher. The end result is a group of enthused people creating a story and meta story they love, together, how good it actually is as say, a novel, is largely irrelevant.

However, a bunch of people following what the GM wants are passive, along for the ride, and less connected. What they get is a story, and probably not a very good one. After all, this isn't even the first draft of a novel, there has been no revision process, pacing has been forced, etc. etc. Even active defiance of what people think to be the plot is fine. The only real exception is actively subverting any semblance of a story to be a jerk (ie, random killing sprees). Which tends to be either apathy, or the people who have been stuck with video games for too long reveling in the fact that they can, both of which will either fade, or cause someone to leave the group at some point or another.

PId6
2010-05-10, 12:13 AM
What I dislike most is a player that metagames to purposefully give the DM a hard time. I have seen a player literally say before "Well, the DM obviously haven't planned anything in that direction. Let's go over there!" In my mind, purposefully trying to find holes in the story or do what your DM least expects for its own sake is about on par with purposefully killing another player's character for metagame reasons; it's just not good for the health of the game. The purpose of roleplaying is so that everyone has fun; making things harder for the DM almost certainly isn't fun for him and likely won't be as fun for the players when he has no idea what to do and just makes up random encounters with no real plot behind them.

Now, if you're playing a sandbox game or when you know that your DM is a fantastic improviser, knows and even expects what you're doing, and can handle it without flinching a bit, that's fine. But otherwise, purposefully trying to go against the DM's expectations for metagame reasons just detracts from the game in general. Note also that this doesn't mean that the DM shouldn't recognize and allow alternative solutions to things; far from it. However, players shouldn't be thinking along the lines of "Hmm, the DM probably expects us to go through the forest, the mountains, or by sea. Let's dig a tunnel there instead!"

Archpaladin Zousha
2010-05-10, 12:18 AM
We have a winner. :smallamused:

I always ask my players to give me leeway, and trust that I'll make things fun for them. That's my JOB after all, and if I'm not doing it well, they can just ask me to shift it up some. Much easier for all involved than going off the rails and just blowing something up or being stupid for the sake of boredom.

To quote a friend, "communication, bitches". :smallamused:

Seconded. When I try to set up a campaign, I give it an overarching story and stuff, but then I ask myself "Okay, now what can I do to emotionally invest the players in this?" Usually what I'll do is ask for my characters to make backstories that I incorporate into the campaign itself, essentially laying bait for the players to involve themselves in the story. Granted this is easier in some cases than others but I think players like it if the story feels genuinely tailored to them and their characters, instead of a random plot that that their characters happened to blunder into by being in the right place at the right time (though that CAN be interesting in and of itself if handled right).

Divide by Zero
2010-05-10, 12:41 AM
"Railroading is not saying 'There is a wall here.' It is saying 'There is a wall everywhere but here.'"

Coidzor
2010-05-10, 01:03 AM
What I dislike most is a player that metagames to purposefully give the DM a hard time.

Now, look. See, there's such a thing as just being a douchebag. If someone's entire purpose is to be an ass, then why on earth are the rest of them playing with the bugger?

huttj509
2010-05-10, 01:14 AM
There is a continuum.

On the one end, we have a total sandbox game. In this game the world is just there, and the PCs can do anything from farming turnips to taking over the kingdom to foiling some schemes they find to looking for monsters to kill, completely at a whim, and it works because the DM knows what's there.

On the other end we have the players sitting back as the DM weaves a bedtime story, telling the players what happens, what their characters do, etc.

In my experience, combined with anecdotal evidence from forums, most games happen somewhere between the two. Such as a mainly sandbox game, but with the players 'happening' to stumble upon the grand vizier's plot, with the assumption that they may help the vizier, stop him, warn the guards, but not that they'll just go back to farming turnips.

Then there's campaign's like the one I'm running, where there's a story, the players have a few options, but they're all being fairly passive and I'm flailing about trying to figure out what style it is they do like so I can shift the campaign closer to it.

But hey, everyone seems to be having fun, and that's what counts.

Zeful
2010-05-10, 01:38 AM
I've been thinking about this awhile now and have thought of a fun little experiment: When you sit down to start setting up the game, you as the DM ask "What kind of game would you like to play?". Then play Socratic Devil's Advocate for every response your player's give you, taking note of every Trope, Cliche and Plot they mention. Spend a couple of hours doing this (maybe the entire length of the "first session"), then when you start writing things down, use everything they gave you, but move the order around and subvert things randomly until you have an workable plot that you can run in the background of the setting.

Fiery Diamond
2010-05-10, 12:53 PM
Implying that I don't have some kind of storyline then? Rather impolite, but no matter.

There is a whole spectrum between completely predictable players, and completely unpredictable players, and furthermore any actions they take will have consequences, however a world operating in the background, without player involvement is incredibly boring, and that is what happens when people try to go along with the plots. All you need is a little push at the very beginning if you have enough proactive wild cards, then just run the setting and improvise your way through.

If, while doing that, a story fails to emerge, then it is a collective failure of massive proportions. Once the ball gets rolling, and more and more NPCs, organizations, and other points about setting get dragged into it, a story is inevitable, both containing the story itself, and the meta story around it, and between the two of them some very impressive material can be generated. The number of people involved in the storytelling, is far higher, particularly at the meta story, and the involvement of people who aren't just along for the ride, and who know they are actively changing things is much higher. The end result is a group of enthused people creating a story and meta story they love, together, how good it actually is as say, a novel, is largely irrelevant.

However, a bunch of people following what the GM wants are passive, along for the ride, and less connected. What they get is a story, and probably not a very good one. After all, this isn't even the first draft of a novel, there has been no revision process, pacing has been forced, etc. etc. Even active defiance of what people think to be the plot is fine. The only real exception is actively subverting any semblance of a story to be a jerk (ie, random killing sprees). Which tends to be either apathy, or the people who have been stuck with video games for too long reveling in the fact that they can, both of which will either fade, or cause someone to leave the group at some point or another.

This is exactly how I run my games, too. This style is best used by DMs who are very good at improvisation, like myself.